Apple hoards tablet share while market falls off a cliff for first quarter

The tablet market suffered even more than IDC expected during the first quarter of 2012.

The overall tablet market is suffering despite Apple's strong numbers when it comes to iPad sales. Released Thursday, IDC's quarterly report on the tablet market shows a steep decline in worldwide tablet shipments during the first quarter of 2012—a 38.4 percent unit decline to 17.4 million units from the previous quarter's 28.2 million units. This was actually lower than IDC's already pessimistic projection of a 34 percent decline. But when it comes to Apple, things are dandy. The company grew its market share from 54.7 percent in Q4 2011 to 68 percent in the most recent quarter.

The first quarter of the calendar year usually results in a decline in unit sales from the previous quarter due to the holiday season rush to buy gadgets. Apple wasn't completely immune to this market force—IDC says the company shipped 11.8 million iPads during the first quarter of the year, down from 15.4 million units over the holiday season. Despite this drop, Apple's share of the tablet market was able to shoot up more than 14 percentage points between quarters, largely because of the precipitous decline in tablet sales from the likes of Amazon. According to IDC, Amazon's share of the tablet market with the Kindle Fire was 16.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011, but fell to just 4 percent in the first quarter of 2012.

These numbers place Apple in first place, Samsung in second, and Amazon in third. Lenovo came in fourth place, while Barnes & Noble's Nook came in fifth.

"Apple's move to position the iPad as an all-purpose tablet, instead of just a content consumption device, is resonating with consumers as well as educational and commercial buyers. And its decision to keep a lower-priced iPad 2 in the market after it launched the new iPad in March seems to be paying off as well," IDC's Research Director of Mobile Connected Devices Tom Mainelli said in a statement. "It seems some of the mainstream Android vendors are finally beginning to grasp a fact that Amazon, B&N, and Pandigital figured out early on. Namely, to compete in the media tablet market with Apple, they must offer their products at notably lower price points."

Indeed, the Android tablet market has struggled for some time to find its place, only to be dominated by the $199 Kindle Fire upon its initial launch last year. But even those don't appear to be selling that well at the moment, according to IDC's own numbers. IDC seems optimistic, however, that there will be some bounce-back from both existing and new players. "The worldwide tablet market is entering a new phase in the second half of 2012 that will undoubtedly reshape the competitive landscape," IDC Vice President of Clients and Displays Bob O'Donnell said.

I'd go further. I'm certain that if the exact same iPad product, OS and all, had been released but with a RIM logo on then it would have sold a fraction of what it has.

People want Apple, not tablets.

I might have agreed with you the first year of the iPad. However, no matter how good your reputation as a company is, if your product can't deliver after three years, consumers are going to become disenchanted and move on. We're not seeing that happen, which implies that the iPad has substance.

So does that mean that we can finally agree that Apple has a monopoly on the tablet market?

Sirius XM was allowed to happen because the term "satellite radio monopoly" is meaningless. Likewise, "tablet monopoly" is also a meaningless thing. Tablets are still competing with ultrathins and large smartphones.

I'd go further. I'm certain that if the exact same iPad product, OS and all, had been released but with a RIM logo on then it would have sold a fraction of what it has.

People want Apple, not tablets.

I might have agreed with you the first year of the iPad. However, no matter how good your reputation as a company is, if your product can't deliver after three years, consumers are going to become disenchanted and move on. We're not seeing that happen, which implies that the iPad has substance.

If RIM began shipping an iPad-quality product, *and followed it up with iPad-quality support*, I think in a year or two it would absolutely move the needle.

People forget, Apple is perhaps the only tablet vendor that stands behind the product for several years. Original iPad 1 owners still get OS updates, can download all the latest apps, etc. For consumers who don't upgrade their gadgets annually, this makes a huge difference. I think there is room in the ecosystem for another vendor with this level of support. It might end up being Amazon, but given that they are already selling at a loss, I have my doubts. So far it certainly hasn't been Samsung, RIM, or any of the smaller Android vendors.

This is more evidence that Google is getting ready to abandon Android for the tablet market and build a ChromeOS tablet.

Samsung's unable to make headway, Amazon has its own app market, now Microsoft is in bed with the Nook. That leaves... Asus? Nice tablets, but they're not exactly in a position to take on Apple.

With Amazon driving the Android tablet app market, Google has no way to encourage developers to build apps that could compete with the iPad on iPad-class devices. The first device Android tablet developers are targeting is a 7" machine running a fork of Froyo/Gingerbread. Building for ICS on 10" HD tablets is an afterthought.

Google has more control over the Chrome platform than it ever did for Android. The Android Market is gone, replaced with Google Play. It's trivial to roll the Chrome Web Store into the Play Store once Google ships a Chrome tablet. We already know that Chrome plays well on ARM, and without Android's overhead, a Chrome tablet should be able to provide much better performance at a lower price point.

I have a feeling the big giveaway at Google I/O this year won't be an Android device -- it'll be the Chrome Tablet.

All well and good, but the PC market is still over 2x bigger. And lets not forget Windows8 on Medfield which could make a pretty good tablet especially if they throw in Office. Still early days in the tablet market.

So, now that the Kindle Fire has flopped, can we finally agree that "tablet" means "iPad"?

So does that mean that we can finally agree that Apple has a monopoly on the tablet market?

If this forum allowed for avatars your should've been a weasel....

You probably haven't been around the BF forum that much... dwell, me, and many others have had a long-running discussion of both "can we finally agree that "tablet" means "iPad"" (there's a whole thread with just that exact title!) and also whether or not Apple can be considered to have a monopoly on tablets. His post was an inside joke and so was mine

You can pick up the playbook for $199. Twice the ram of the Fire. It works well, but if you need to play games, you are goimg to be hurting.

The Nook Tablet, Playbook, and Fire all come from the same Chinese factory. I think the Playbook has a better display, and the HDMi is neet for playing videos on the big screen. The form factor is such that I can type on it using my thumbs.

Personally, I can't stand App mania. I tired of constantly upgrading programs and worse yet, having to mess with the permissions to find the minimum permission set that let's the app run.

Incidentally, the playbook can use converted Android apps. RIM puts them in their app store without really designating what apps are native versus apps that went through the apk to bar converter. There are substatially more converted apps on the net that can be side loaded.

Basically you don't need an ipad unless you like to play those lame tablet games. I find the ipad form factor a bit silly. Too big to hold in your hands, and annoying to view if flat on a table. The thing is useless without a stand of some sort. Even if you could use it hand held, it is too heavy for that use. The appeal of the ipad escapes me, but I don't like Koolaid either.

It's not illegal to have a monopoly but some of the stuff Apple does certainly needs to get looked at. I know iOS allows "alternative" browsers in the sense that they are just skins on top of the built in webkit, but can you imagine the outrage if MS required that all browsers on Windows must be skins on top of the built in Trident engine?

Apple's move to position the iPad as an all-purpose tablet, instead of just a content consumption device, is resonating with consumers

Excuse me, Mr. Brilliant Industry Analyst, but it was you guys who've "positioned" the iPad as a "consumption device" all this time. Apple hasn't "moved" anywhere different than they've been since the original iPad was announced.

It's not illegal to have a monopoly but some of the stuff Apple does certainly needs to get looked at. I know iOS allows "alternative" browsers in the sense that they are just skins on top of the built in webkit, but can you imagine the outrage if MS required that all browsers on Windows must be skins on top of the built in Trident engine?

It's not illegal to have a monopoly but some of the stuff Apple does certainly needs to get looked at. I know iOS allows "alternative" browsers in the sense that they are just skins on top of the built in webkit, but can you imagine the outrage if MS required that all browsers on Windows must be skins on top of the built in Trident engine?

I think the Windows 8 combined desktop/tablet UI concept is kludgy as hell, but Microsoft at least has a shot at the tablet market because it can suggest a reason to buy: this tablet works with enterprise, has MS Office etc. The "business" tablet. I don't think Android has gotten any traction in the tablet space because there's no compelling reason to buy it. "It's like an iPad, but it's not an iPad" does not draw in a very significant share of the general population. They're not necessarily cheaper, have no apps (relatively speaking), and most would consider them inferior from a build/manufacturing point of view.

I am sorry but that's like me rdp'ing into a windows machine from an ipad and claiming I can run windows on it! As it is, iOS doesn't allow any alternative rendering engines in the device itself. Like I said, had MS forced the same restrictions on Windows then there would be outrage. If iPad has a monopoly in tablets, then this is certainly something that needs to be looked at.

I am sorry but that's like me rdp'ing into a windows machine from an ipad and claiming I can run windows on it! As it is, iOS doesn't allow any alternative rendering engines in the device itself. Like I said, had MS forced the same restrictions on Windows then there would be outrage. If iPad has a monopoly in tablets, then this is certainly something that needs to be looked at.

It's a de facto monopoly, it's only because no one has released anything that has made iPad owners want to switch. Apple created a market, and it's going to take a while for anyone else to do anything to put a dent in their sales (remember the first half-decade of the iPod?)

I am sorry but that's like me rdp'ing into a windows machine from an ipad and claiming I can run windows on it! As it is, iOS doesn't allow any alternative rendering engines in the device itself. Like I said, had MS forced the same restrictions on Windows then there would be outrage. If iPad has a monopoly in tablets, then this is certainly something that needs to be looked at.

microsfot went around telling other PC-makers what browser they could and could not install on their computers. Does Apple go to Samsung or Amazon and tell them not to install other browsers?